Enjambment

[sophieloves]

I changed it to show how I hear it in my head.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure how the poet intended the lines in the original be read. I'm assuming its like this (If you follow my method outlined above for showing stress):

They taste good to her
They taste good
to her. They taste
good to her

I appreciate that I may be completely misunderstanding the dynamics of these lines, but if my assumption is correct, I must conclude that the four lines amount to little more than empty gymnastics with words, and add nothing to the sense and meaning of the whole. It is as though the writer is providing a list of nuances and leaving it to the reader to make all the decisions even when the choices offered don't really belong in the same conversation as the rest of the poem. I don't actually see the point of breaking the lines like that, quite frankly.

I am hoping that if I am, in fact, missing something here, that someone will come to my rescue.

oh. ok. i wasn't criticising, just trying to get a better grasp on what you were saying. i'm here trying to learn something

i think the way the words sounded in my head, and as i then try to read them aloud, it worked more like:

They taste good to her
They taste good
to her. They taste
good. to. her.

 

[lorencino]

oh. ok. i wasn't criticising, just trying to get a better grasp on what you were saying. i'm here trying to learn something

i think the way the words sounded in my head, and as i then try to read them aloud, it worked more like

They taste good to her
They taste good
to her. They taste
good. to. her.

That is fascinating. To review, this is how I depicted what happened in my head:
(with the addition of underline to show normal stress
while bold shows an increase over the normal stress
and it still remains a rough guide to the sound

They taste good to her
They taste good to her
They taste
good to her

And this is how you sound it:
They taste good to her
They taste good
to her. They taste
good. to. her.

I wonder if these variations are purely personal variations or culturally based or even perhaps some combination of the two.

Another interesting thought that is illustrated by the nature of our exchange here is how inadequate written communication really is. You assure me above that you were not criticizing when, in fact, I never felt that you were, but you picked up on a suggestion that I feel criticized from something I wrote. This misunderstanding happens all the time in emails and discussion forums and is the principal reason that, traditionally, there is a marked distinction between written and spoken English.

With spoken English we are listening with less than 50% of our attention on the actual dictionary definition of the words. As we listen we evaluate rhythm, tone and quite significantly a great deal of non-vocal cues--what we call body language. When we have these chatty conversations in writing, we are missing the auditory and visual cues that form a significant portion of human communication. This is why it is important to be very slow to take offence with these exchanges because in the vast majority of circumstances, if we could actually see the person who seems to be offensive, her body language would bring us to a different conclusion.

So what is behind the difference in the rhythm of your and my language as illustrated by the verse interpretations above?

 

[sophieloves]

That is fascinating. To review, this is how I depicted what happened in my head:
(with the addition of underline to show normal stress
while bold shows an increase over the normal stress
and it still remains a rough guide to the sound

They taste good to her
They taste good to her
They taste
good to her

And this is how you sound it:
They taste good to her
They taste good
to her. They taste
good. to. her.

I wonder if these variations are purely personal variations or culturally based or even perhaps some combination of the two.

Another interesting thought that is illustrated by the nature of our exchange here is how inadequate written communication really is. You assure me above that you were not criticizing when, in fact, I never felt that you were, but you picked up on a suggestion that I feel criticized from something I wrote. This misunderstanding happens all the time in emails and discussion forums and is the principal reason that, traditionally, there is a marked distinction between written and spoken English.

With spoken English we are listening with less than 50% of our attention on the actual dictionary definition of the words. As we listen we evaluate rhythm, tone and quite significantly a great deal of non-vocal cues--what we call body language. When we have these chatty conversations in writing, we are missing the auditory and visual cues that form a significant portion of human communication. This is why it is important to be very slow to take offence with these exchanges because in the vast majority of circumstances, if we could actually see the person who seems to be offensive, her body language would bring us to a different conclusion.

So what is behind the difference in the rhythm of your and my language as illustrated by the verse interpretations above?

crikey, this gets complicated, doesn't it?

i frequently am reminded of how 'deaf' text is, and try not to jump to conclusions - while, at the same time, i often find i pick up on moods through the laying down of a person's words.... perhaps when their style changes a little or something. i didn't so much pick up on any offense, but offered a qualifier as pre-emptive, so none might be inferred. and i KNOW people loathe smilies, for so many reasons, but i still find they have their value when we can't see the other person's expressions to 'read' those too.


So what is behind the difference in the rhythm of your and my language as illustrated by the verse interpretations above?

this is hard to answer, especially as i have no idea what the regional accent of your part of the world really sounds like. i will do my best. my own accent is london, but not posh - and nor is it cockney. but then i'm not sure i'm really hearing my own voice when i read the poem: i kind of 'hear' it (and my voice takes this on when i read it aloud, like acting almost) with a deeper, richer tone than my own.. a more tropical-sounding, more musically accented voice. however wrong that might be, it's what happens as i read this piece! in fact, you've made me stop and evaluate something i didn't consciously reallise i was doing. goodness..... maybe this is not a good thing! i don't know.

 

[champagne1982]

They taste good to her
They taste good
to her. They taste
good to her.
________________________

My take. First off, since L1 & L2 both begin with the same pronoun, the first word should be given emphasis. Secondly, end words should get an emphasis simply because they are end words. At the last, since L4 is the conclusion of the strophe, I think equal weight should be given to each beat in the line, in preparation for the next emphasized word in the poem, You.

 

[lorencino]

They taste good to her
They taste good
to her. They taste
good to her.
________________________

My take. First off, since L1 & L2 both begin with the same pronoun, the first word should be given emphasis. Secondly, end words should get an emphasis simply because they are end words. At the last, since L4 is the conclusion of the strophe, I think equal weight should be given to each beat in the line, in preparation for the next emphasized word in the poem, You.

This third way of reading these lines is most unusual to my ear. We've had South African, London, and now I suspect an American interpretation. I am beginning to think that perhaps it is personal differences rather than cultural because I've never seen anything quite like this. Are there any other variations out there?

 

[twelveoone]

thank you
that Pinsky is a real fucker...
and so is that Willain Carlos Willaims
and so am I
Pinksy Quote from same book:
There are no rules.
1201's jingle:
Throw out
the fucking rule
book.
Break out
the fucking tool
box.

My assumption, or maybe my question is, does it matter where the reader puts the stress, does it work?

 

[champagne1982]

This third way of reading these lines is most unusual to my ear. We've had South African, London, and now I suspect an American interpretation. I am beginning to think that perhaps it is personal differences rather than cultural because I've never seen anything quite like this. Are there any other variations out there?

I'm from Canada.

 

[sophieloves]

thank you
that Pinsky is a real fucker...
and so is that Willain Carlos Willaims
and so am I
Pinksy Quote from same book:
There are no rules.
1201's jingle:
Throw out
the fucking rule
book.
Break out
the fucking tool
box.

My assumption, or maybe my question is, does it matter where the reader puts the stress, does it work?

i think it DOES matter, to me as an individual, where those stresses lie... it makes a difference in the overall 'sound' of a poem to me as i read it. now, i can go back over a piece and try to re-arrange how i'm hearing it, to try and hear how the poet intends it heard. for me it can make all the difference between 'yeah, i kind of like this one, it has some great imagery, some great sounds...' and 'wow! i can really feel this piece'.

now, that's saying to me that an awful lot of the onus of deciding if a poem is good or not is purely on the shoulders of individuals and what they read into a work. if the poet needs a piece to be read a specific way, then i guess it's down to the poet to be completely unambiguous in thier stage-directing. maybe this accounts so much for why some will really enjoy a poem that others find misses the mark?

 

[twelveoone]

i think it DOES matter, to me as an individual, where those stresses lie... it makes a difference in the overall 'sound' of a poem to me as i read it. now, i can go back over a piece and try to re-arrange how i'm hearing it, to try and hear how the poet intends it heard. for me it can make all the difference between 'yeah, i kind of like this one, it has some great imagery, some great sounds...' and 'wow! i can really feel this piece'.

now, that's saying to me that an awful lot of the onus of deciding if a poem is good or not is purely on the shoulders of individuals and what they read into a work. if the poet needs a piece to be read a specific way, then i guess it's down to the poet to be completely unambiguous in thier stage-directing. maybe this accounts so much for why some will really enjoy a poem that others find misses the mark?

Books have been written about the "Sound". I think (not sure) GM Hopkins came up with his own form of notation. But imagery (visual) should have very little to do with accent points. Yes it does put alot on your shoulders, as it should as to whether you like a piece or not. So you are right.

But I remind you, enjambment is a visual cue, and often it is an cue that the "reading" can go in another way that you orginally thought. Part of the joy of discovery.

 

[sophieloves]

Books have been written about the "Sound". I think (not sure) GM Hopkins came up with his own form of notation. But imagery (visual) should have very little to do with accent points. Yes it does put alot on your shoulders, as it should as to whether you like a piece or not. So you are right.

But I remind you, enjambment is a visual cue, and often it is an cue that the "reading" can go in another way that you orginally thought. Part of the joy of discovery.

i do know i'm enjoying discovering about poetry here, and this thread is another step towards understanding it more. for me, a visual can work independently of where stresses might lie, but work so much better when there is an underlying rhythmic or musical thing happening at the same time to lift it further. maybe it's the difference, for me as the individual reader, between what catches my thoughts and what doesn't. i've never really had to think about all this before, always having been the reader. actually stopping to think about why something is working for me is an education in its own right. i'm finding some real value in these discussions.
if an enjambment is being employed, i do now look to see why the author chose to play the line-breaks the way they did.

what i'd find even more interesting, right now, would be to hear how you placed those stresses in your own mind as you read this work... whether or not these vary as you read it, the differing inflections creating a new piece with the reading.

 

[anonamouse]

i do know i'm enjoying discovering about poetry here, and this thread is another step towards understanding it more. for me, a visual can work independently of where stresses might lie, but work so much better when there is an underlying rhythmic or musical thing happening at the same time to lift it further. maybe it's the difference, for me as the individual reader, between what catches my thoughts and what doesn't. i've never really had to think about all this before, always having been the reader. actually stopping to think about why something is working for me is an education in its own right. i'm finding some real value in these discussions.
if an enjambment is being employed, i do now look to see why the author chose to play the line-breaks the way they did.

what i'd find even more interesting, right now, would be to hear how you placed those stresses in your own mind as you read this work... whether or not these vary as you read it, the differing inflections creating a new piece with the reading.

knowing 1201, he either read it flat, or read it like Edward G. Robinson, or George W. Bush. Either way works.

What you said in bold, very important. I think I remember reading an excellent example in either Empson or Fussell. Can't place it now, beback a lulu, when I do.

 

[sophieloves]

knowing 1201, he either read it flat, or read it like Edward G. Robinson, or George W. Bush. Either way works.

What you said in bold, very important. I think I remember reading an excellent example in either Empson or Fussell. Can't place it now, beback a lulu, when I do.

i'd like to see that. ty.

 

[twelveoone]

i do know i'm enjoying discovering about poetry here, and this thread is another step towards understanding it more. for me, a visual can work independently of where stresses might lie, but work so much better when there is an underlying rhythmic or musical thing happening at the same time to lift it further. maybe it's the difference, for me as the individual reader, between what catches my thoughts and what doesn't. i've never really had to think about all this before, always having been the reader. actually stopping to think about why something is working for me is an education in its own right. i'm finding some real value in these discussions.
if an enjambment is being employed, i do now look to see why the author chose to play the line-breaks the way they did.

what i'd find even more interesting, right now, would be to hear how you placed those stresses in your own mind as you read this work... whether or not these vary as you read it, the differing inflections creating a new piece with the reading.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I hunted and hunted...
This example is not the one I thought I saw, but I think it is a good one.
From Poetic Meter & Poetic Form (revised Edition) by Paul Fussell
p.58

"All this secretion of irony and derision which attends the terminal trochee when it appears in a gernarally skeptical context can be exploited by a skillful contemporary metrist like Donald Hall in "Christams Eve to Whitneyville, 1955"..."


Tonight you lie in Whitneyville again,
Near where you lived, and near the woords or farms
Which Eli Whitney settled with the men
Who worked at mass-producing /firearms/

although Fussell uses this as an example of metrical variation, note what happens here:

Tonight you lie in Whitneyville again, (stop)
Near where you lived, and near the woords or farms <
Which Eli Whitney settled with the men<
Who worked at mass-producing firearms.


Note what this guy says about how it is read.

This also give you three lines to hit the end stop, reinforcing the irony of the line and the inverted foot. You may want to consider the effect of "mass-producing" in the context of the poem.

Tricks or technique?

 

[foehn2]

I think "enjambment" is a relatively recent ... um, thing. I'm not sure, I haven't ever gone into the etymology of the word, its history and so on. I'm less interested about the intellect of poetry, I suppose, than its effect.

I think the caesura is a pretty-well recognized terms in poetics. I'm fairly ignorant of where all this stuff comes from, but I think I have a fair grasp of what's going on, when it happens.

Enjambment, also, seems to have various definitions, depending upon which source you consult. To me, it always meant (in some esoteric fashion) ending lines at places that were not natural pauses in speech, so that the reader's mind or eye was "pulled" along to the next phrase, word, or line.

Not sure how it ever came to be called "enjambment." One of the dumbest terms I know of in poetics, next to "caesura" -- which simply means, a natural pause in speech. Sometimes it might be a comma, or a space, or a line break -- just a place where the speaker, pausing, gives emphasis (usually) to the previous word.

I love the study of poetics and the terminology. I studied it fervently in the past, but these days, I mostly don't care. I'd rather just write.

On a somewhat lighter note, I think maybe some day, there will be a Wikipedia article about the Literotica School of Poetry. Led by many of the individuals here who make themselves famous in my mind, including, but not at all limited to, WickedEve, twelveoone, Angeline, DeepAsleep, and more others than I can count, really, unless a mad Arab chops off my toes, and lets me count to twenty.

 

[WhiteWave48]

*****

 

[sophieloves]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I hunted and hunted...
This example is not the one I thought I saw, but I think it is a good one.
From Poetic Meter & Poetic Form (revised Edition) by Paul Fussell
p.58

"All this secretion of irony and derision which attends the terminal trochee when it appears in a gernarally skeptical context can be exploited by a skillful contemporary metrist like Donald Hall in "Christams Eve to Whitneyville, 1955"..."


Tonight you lie in Whitneyville again,
Near where you lived, and near the woords or farms
Which Eli Whitney settled with the men
Who worked at mass-producing /firearms/

although Fussell uses this as an example of metrical variation, note what happens here:

Tonight you lie in Whitneyville again, (stop)
Near where you lived, and near the woords or farms <
Which Eli Whitney settled with the men<
Who worked at mass-producing firearms.


Note what this guy says about how it is read.

This also give you three lines to hit the end stop, reinforcing the irony of the line and the inverted foot. You may want to consider the effect of "mass-producing" in the context of the poem.

Tricks or technique?

thankyou, for this, twelveone i'm taking it in and having a think about it all. *nods* here to learn and all help appreciated.

 

[butters]

Carnivale

The days that now grow shorter soon will turn
to meat redolent nights that carry song
to the canals dipped by oars. Voices burn

their secret whispers, churn with lies along
these ancient streets, brush mystery to silk.
Columbina’s shaking hands do no wrong

to lift the masque, display the tender milk
of skin, the fair neck bared to Saturn’s lips,
soft and sickle curved. Others of his ilk

caper with clouds, approve these mortal sips
of human flesh, loosening dress, the bite
to harvest her desire, draw her hips

to pulsing flesh and seed her in the night
of her pale thighs. Her smile as clouds sail by.

I think it worked in my Terza Rima. I like having the rhyme de-emphasized; the reader still hears it, but not in that sing-songy rhythm one often gets when the end stop and rhyme are together.

Did you mean enjambment in a form poem is counter-intuitive?(Forgive me if I've garbled what you said--I'm still waking up.) What did you mean by that?

wow!!! this is yours, Angeline? FANTASTIQUO!

yes, it works. everything about this works for me.

 

[bflagsst]

"to lift the masque, display the tender milk
of skin, the fair neck bared to Saturn’s lips,
soft and sickle curved. Others of his ilk"


'tender, Saturn, curved' is the only way to rhyme these days.

 

[DeepAsleep]

Did someone say MFA poets are boring readers?!

Ever listen to Ginsberg read Howl?

"Cock..........and ENDless Balls...."
the end of each line going UP,
like a QUESTION....


Boooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dbdE2Cy0EM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ9zt5fUS00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9cw-qc-PO0

Whee!

 

[butters]

I can't listen now till I get a new headset but it's a sad fact most witers don't make brilliant readers. That's a whole other skillset and some people simply have 'the voice' where others don't. Listening to some truly inspirational poets crucify their own work is an awful experience.

 

[bflagsst]

I can't listen now till I get a new headset but it's a sad fact most witers don't make brilliant readers. That's a whole other skillset and some people simply have 'the voice' where others don't. Listening to some truly inspirational poets crucify their own work is an awful experience.

D Thomas had a fake ass voice he'd put on to read. I hate it and also like it because it makes me laugh hearing him read some of the best poems ever written sounding like my dad would read a menu trying to be a funny man.

 

[lorencino]

D Thomas had a fake ass voice he'd put on to read. I hate it and also like it because it makes me laugh hearing him read some of the best poems ever written sounding like my dad would read a menu trying to be a funny man.

That's why we have an acting profession.

 

[bflagsst]

D Thomas had a fake ass voice he'd put on to read. I hate it and also like it because it makes me laugh hearing him read some of the best poems ever written sounding like my dad would read a menu trying to be a funny man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xGa7H-VgI&feature=related

Sometimes he's not this bad, mostly it's worse.